Drishti-Srishti vada in Advaita

[The Crimson Universe]

The doctrine of drishti-srishti vada in Advaita says that jiva's vision or perception is the cause of this universe.

Did Shankara write any commentaries explaining how the manifestation of the universe takes place due to our perception?

If you ask me, the universe will continue to exist even after all of us shuts our eyes or even if we all go into a collective coma session. The universe in my opinion has an existence independent of our collective perception or cognitive abilities.
But this isn't a thread about my beliefs or opinions. Here I would like to know, how can the universe arise due to our perception alone (as per drishti-srishti vada)?

Thank you.

 

[Martin]

It's not a teaching that I understand. It seems to challenge the assumption of an objective world "out there", though I don't find the arguments all that convincing.

For example, I can understand that my personal "world" ceases during deep sleep, but I don't think that "proves" the universe disappears while I'm asleep. The universe is still there when I wake up, and appears to have moved on without my personal involvement. All I can say for sure is that my mind was "switched off" for a period of time.

I can understand that everything I experience is an appearance to (my) consciousness, and I can understand that these appearances are transient. But I don't think that "proves" anything about the nature of reality, it's really just taking a phenomenological view of experience, or even a sort of solipsism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The universe in my opinion has an existence independent of our collective perception or cognitive abilities.

Yeah, it seems so to our collective perception and cognitive abilities, but it does not prove that the universe is permanent or substantial. What if it goes phut at any time?

 

[Martin]

Yeah, it seems so to our collective perception and cognitive abilities, but it does not prove that the universe is permanent or substantial. What if it goes phut at any time?

Substantiality is the issue here, not permanence. Whether or not the universe exists independently of our consciousness. I'd have thought you would agree that it does, given your scientific orientation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How much permanent? If eternal like the theist Gods and Goddesses, where did it come from? Substantial? With all things made up of sub-atomic particles, which are points of energy? Where did this energy come from? The only way we could escape this question is to accept that there is nothing substantial or permanent and it all arises from 'absolute nothing' and perhaps goes back to be 'absolute nothing' (pralaya, dissolution). I think Buddha was not far-off from the truth when he said, it is anatta and anicca.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The doctrine of drishti-srishti vada in Advaita says that jiva's vision or perception is the cause of this universe.

Drishti-srishti originally comes from Buddhism (particularly Vijnana-vada). It eventually became a part of Advaita.

Did Shankara write any commentaries explaining how the manifestation of the universe takes place due to our perception?

No. But your description of Drishti-srishti is not correct. It means everything seen has you as the origin. This includes everything in space and time. You are the the basis, you are the constant. Without the seer, there is nothing to be seen. Without the experiencer, there can be no experience. And you are the *only* experiencer - without a second.

If you ask me, the universe will continue to exist even after all of us shuts our eyes or even if we all go into a collective coma session.

The universe (space and time) has no existence apart from your consciousness. Other people have no existence apart from your consciousness. Things only come into existence when you think about them. Sleep is always in the past or the future. You can never tell yourself you are asleep. Your mind projects the past and the future - creating the illusion of linear time.

This is hard to see because these disjoint thoughts appear to be a coherent whole - creating the impression that you are a part of the universe. This is the illusion to see through. You are not part of the universe; instead it is the opposite - the universe has no existence outside your mind.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

You are the the basis, you are the constant. Without the seer, there is nothing to be seen. Without the experiencer, there can be no experience.

By "YOU" do you mean the infinite "Me" (the foundation of all names and forms) ... or is it the individual "Me" called Greg?

Things only come into existence when you think about them.

If its the infinite "Me" that you're speaking of here, then can the infinite think without the 4 inner mental-sheaths? In other words, can the infinite brahman think or cognize in a disembodied sheathless state?
Does the space outside the pot has an infinite mind?

 

[Martin]

How much permanent? If eternal like the theist Gods and Goddesses, where did it come from? Substantial? With all things made up of sub-atomic particles, which are points of energy? Where did this energy come from? The only way we could escape this question is to accept that there is nothing substantial or permanent and it all arises from 'absolute nothing' and perhaps goes back to be 'absolute nothing' (pralaya, dissolution). I think Buddha was not far-off from the truth when he said, it is anatta and anicca.

The question here is whether or not the universe exists independent of our consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The question here is whether or not the universe exists independent of our consciousness.

Something exists at present, which we perceive in the form of a universe and our world. I do not know if it has a non-existent phase. That is, whether it arose of 'absolute nothing' and will go back to being 'absolute nothing' at any point in time.

 

[Martin]

Something exists at present, which we perceive in the form of a universe and our world. I do not know if it has a non-existent phase. That is, whether it arose of 'absolute nothing' and will go back to being 'absolute nothing' at any point in time.

Thats a different question, and off-topic in this discussion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, relevant to this topic, something exists presently, 'physical energy'. Its properties in detail is another topic.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

By "YOU" do you mean the infinite "Me" (the foundation of all names and forms) ... or is it the individual "Me" called Greg?

There is only one "you".

If its the infinite "Me" that you're speaking of here, then can the infinite think without the 4 inner mental-sheaths? In other words, can the infinite brahman think or cognize in a disembodied sheathless state?
Does the space outside the pot has an infinite mind?

No idea what these sheaths are. But I see you are are viewing time as linear and real. That is not Advaita.